Past_Performance_Questionaire.docx
DOCX document 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Recondition Water Storage Tanks to Current Codes Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- P15PS00925
About this file
Past Performance Questionnaire
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_P15PS00925_Amd_000002.pdf | ||
| P15PS00925_Revised_Clauses.docx | DOCX document | |
| Metcalf_Bottoms.pdf | ||
| FMD_Pre_Water_Tanks.doc | DOC document | |
| Cosby_Photos.pdf | ||
| Sol_P15PS00925_Amd_000001.pdf | ||
| Chimneys.pdf | ||
| Specs_-_Tank_Rehab.pdf | ||
| DB_WD_TN36_-_Cocke_County.pdf | ||
| Sol_P15PS00925.pdf | ||
| P15PS00925_Clauses.docx | DOCX document | |
| PRICE_SCHEDULE.docx | DOCX document | |
| Metcalf_Bottoms_Water_Tank_Plans_half_size.pdf | ||
| Cosby_Water_Tank_Plans_half_size.pdf | ||
| Chimneys_Water_Tank_Plans_half_size.pdf | ||
| DB_WD_TN67_-_Sevier_County.pdf |
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Past Performance Questionaire
MEMORANDUM FOR PROJECT OWNERS
| FROM: | Great Smoky Mountains National Park | |
| ATTN: Laurie Sherrod | ||
| 107 Park Headquarters Rd | ||
| Gatlinburg TN 37738 |
SUBJECT: Request for Performance Information
1. One of integral considerations in proposal evaluations is the verification of the offeror’s past and present performance on contracts, which reflect the offeror’s ability to perform on the proposed effort of reconditioning old water tanks. We depend on information received from agencies such as yours, which have had firsthand experience with the offeror, and for the evaluation of their performance. Therefore, I request the attached questionnaire be completed concerning the offeror’s past/present performance.
2. Our areas of interest in the offeror are summarized in the enclosed questionnaire. You are urged to submit your comments on other similar programs for which your activity has contracts or administers contracts with the offeror. Any additional information that you think would benefit the government in our evaluation of the offeror’s proposal would be appreciated. Please note, we may contact the offeror on problem areas or concerns identified to see what corrective actions have been taken or will be taken. The offeror was required to provide points of contact for each reference provided to the government; however, the individual’s name completing the questionnaire will not be disclosed to the offeror.
3. Due to time constraints it is imperative that the questionnaire be completed and returned not later than August 18, 2014. The questionnaire may be returned to us by email at laurie_sherrod@nps.gov or by fax #865-436-1220. The completed documentation should be marked “Source Selection Sensitive”.
4. If additional information is required, please contact Laurie Sherrod at 865-436-1219.
| //SIGNED// |
| LAURIE SHERROD |
| Contracting Officer |
ATTACHMENT:
Past Performance Questionnaire
Past Performance Questionnaire Attn: Laurie Sherrod, Reconditioning of Old Water Tanks
I. Contractor Information: Complete the following information on the contractor that provided or is currently providing services for your company.
a. Contractor (Company/Name):
b. Contractor Address/Phone:
c. Contract:
1. Number:
2. Period of Performance:
3. Services Provided (Explain, in some detail, the type of services provided by the contractor. Identify any performance history the contractor has providing operation and management of a facility or function within your company.
4. Total Contract Amount:
II. Respondent Identification: Complete the following information on your company. You may be contacted for additional information pertaining to the past or present performance of the contractor identified in section I above. (The following information will assist in the analysis of the data. Information will be kept confidential)
a. Name:
b. Position and Title:
c. Phone Number:
d. Address:
e. Relationship and Time involved with Program/Contract:
f. Date you completed this questionnaire:
Performance Information: When responding to the following statements, choose the number on the scale of 1 to 5, which most accurately describes the Contractor's performance; if the statement is not applicable, Circle N/A. The numbers correspond with the following:
| 1 |
| 2 |
| 3 |
| 4 |
| 5 |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Marginal |
| Satisfactory |
| Very Good |
| Exceptional |
The Contractor:
1. How would you rate the contractor’s overall performance in terms of quality, timeliness, professionalism, and courtesy?
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
COMMENTS/REMARKS:
2. How effective is the contractor’s management team and were they effective in hiring qualified and experienced employees?
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
COMMENTS/REMARKS:
| 3. How would you rate the contractor’s emphasis on customer satisfaction? |
| 1 2 3 4 5 N/A |
COMMENTS/REMARKS:
4. How would you rate the contractor’s equipment and containers with regard to ensuring refuse remains contained at all times?
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
COMMENTS/REMARKS:
5. How well did the contractor plan for and execute quality control?
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
COMMENTS/REMARKS:
| 6. Please rate the contractor’s effectiveness in identifying, managing and resolving problems. |
| 1 2 3 4 5 N/A |
COMMENTS/REMARKS:
7. Please rate the contractor’s overall compliance with the Refuse contract terms and conditions.
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
COMMENTS/REMARKS:
8. Delivery Schedule: How well did the contractor meet required Refuse pickup schedules?
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
COMMENTS/REMARKS:
9. Has the Contractor ever been given a Cure Notice, Show Cause Notice, Letter of Concerns, or had payment withheld for services not rendered?
10. Circle the letter that best describes your experiences and overall satisfaction of the contractor’s performance:
a. They were an unsatisfactory Contractor. We would not want to contract with this firm again under any circumstances.
b. They were a marginal Contractor. Numerous problems developed that were a result of their lack of cooperation and failure to perform services as required.
c. They were a satisfactory Contractor who met the minimum requirements of the contract. Performance deficiencies improved when identified by the Government, however an aggressive inspection program was required to ensure compliance.
d. They were a very good Contractor whom we would not hesitate to enter into another contract. Problems encountered were minor and solutions were found with little difficulty.
e. They are an exceptional Contracting firm in every respect. Problems were solved in a spirit of teamwork. Quality work, timely actions, and complete documentation were routinely achieved. We would pay premium prices to contract with them again.
COMMENTS/REMARKS:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .